Peel v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 26109.,26109. |
| Citation | 410 F.2d 1141 |
| Parties | Frank Crowe PEEL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Pearson & Josefsberg, Daniel S. Pearson, Robert C. Josefsberg, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., J. V. Eskenazi, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and CASSIBRY, District Judge.
Appellant was convicted of seven substantive counts of violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312, and of a conspiracy count to violate the same Act.
The first argument made by appellant is that the trial court erred in restricting his cross-examination of Trinkner, the principal government witness, as to acts of Trinkner that may have been criminal in nature, but as to which there had been no indictment or conviction. We find nothing in this record to warrant departure from the well recognized rule that character examinations of a witness to impeach his credibility must ordinarily be limited to inquiries as to conviction of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. Myers v. United States (5 Cir., 1967), 377 F.2d 412.
There is no substance to the remaining points raised by appellant as to the charge of the court dealing with the inference that may be drawn from proof of one's possession of recently stolen property.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Crockett, 74-3923
...to impeach a witness's credibility. 13 United States v. Dunham Concrete Products, 5 Cir. 1973, 475 F.2d 1241, 1250; Peel v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 1141. We could, of course, remand for an evidentiary hearing and findings as to existence vel non of prior convictions for felonie......
-
Jones v. State
...; Hayes v. U.S., 407 F.2d 189, 193–94 (5th Cir.), cert. dismissed 395 U.S. 972, 89 S.Ct. 2133, 23 L.Ed.2d 777 (1969) ; Peel v. U.S., 410 F.2d 1141–42 (5th Cir.1969).Brent, 632 So.2d at 945. Jones argues that Brent disallowed the State's calling Holcombe–Ferrell as a rebuttal witness after S......
-
Brent v. State
...Hayes v. U.S., 407 F.2d 189, 193-94 (5th Cir.), cert. dismissed 395 U.S. 972, 89 S.Ct. 2133, 23 L.Ed.2d 777 (1969); Peel v. U.S., 410 F.2d 1141-42 (5th Cir.1969). We find no error in the circuit judge's exclusion of the line of questioning of Danny which defense counsel was attempting in th......
-
United States v. Partin
...Circuit make no mention of the Luck-Gordon distinction. See, United States v. Smith, 420 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1970); Peel v. United States, 410 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir. 1969); Pinkney v. United States, 380 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1967). Cf. Roberson v. United States, 249 F.2d 737 (5th Cir. 1957). The m......